you can't call chi a subset of a domain of vitalism ergo it isn't disproven.

I never attempted to, because vitalism is not a domain nor any sort of superset. This has not been asserted by any person here, so there is no logic in attempting to defend a point no one made. We do not need categorical reasoning of any sort.

Vitalism is a specific and clearly discredited set of beliefs about the fundamental processes of life. A key claim of vitalism was that only living things could make the physical substances which living things are made of. This is what was quite obviously falsified, and the point you started the thread with. Chi however makes no such claim. At no point in any instruction about chi that I ever had did anyone ever claim anything of that sort. I showed you a prominent description of chi showing chi was quite different from such claims. And I cannot even recall ever seeing a text about chi making such a claim.

Rather than asking me to defend points I never made, why don't you try supporting the point you DID make. Show that your claims about chi are true. To be clear, to defend your point you must show that common theories of chi predict that only living things make the physical substances which living things are made of.

You clearly believed it very strongly when you posted this thread. If you now cannot support your assertion about chi that started the thread with actual evidence, then the proper thing to do would be to admit that.

The logic is very simple. You made a claim that chi is invalid because physical substances used in life can be generated by processes other than life. Yet you have not shown that chi practices or beliefs in use actually predict that, so you have not actually made any supported claims about chi.

It is not sufficient to claim some biologist or chemist you talked to thinks that's what chi is. Biology and chemistry curricula do not typically cover the definition of chi. It would be sufficient if you showed that prominent practitioners of chi or respected authorities on chi think that's what chi is.

If you are attempting to discredit people who actually DO chi, which you are clearly attempting, then the burden is on you to actually show that the chi you are discrediting predicts what you have falsified.

I see that you are upset, but it's not personal, it's logic. Fulfill the necessary logic to make the claim, or your claim has no support.

To the contrary, I already clearly defined it. Your mind is stuck on some sort of non-standard definition of "domain", and you seem to think I am lying to you because of this. In fact I was not. I was simply using a more common usage of domain. This line of discussion is also a tangent, which is why I have not replied to it other than just now to let you know that I am neither an idiot nor lying to you. Those assertions are unneeded, false, and off-topic. For the rest, I would like to focus on the question of the actual topic.

there are many possible definitions of chi ... you are not clarifying why we are using that one.

I will tell you exactly why. You claimed, "If you are one of these people who believes in chi, prana, ki, or whatever, just know you are just as foolish as people who believe the Earth is flat". Therefore, your claim that everyone has been replying to is specifically about the people who believe in chi. If you want to make a claim about the people who believe in chi, and you want to say their beliefs are foolish, then it is necessary for you to use the definition of what they actually believe.

This is not arbitrary. It is logically necessary to address those people's beliefs for your own claim about those people's beliefs to be supported.

None of us gets to unilaterally decide what chi is and isn't. We did not invent it; it is a paradigm that already exists in the way that it does. It is what it is, and therefore it is in our best interests to attempt to accurately model it so that we might draw meaningful conclusions.

From what I see, kobok's approach to this seems quite reasonable. Simply look at what the most prominent proponents of the paradigm have to say about what it is and what it isn't and take that for what it is. And upon doing so, kobok has argued that he doesn't think chi possesses that attribute of vitalism that you attempted to disprove. He then proceeds to ask you why you think it does possesses it. I do not think this is an unreasonable request.

Seriously, Rayn. Nobody gives a damn what your personal opinion of them is. At least not in this thread. If you would spend half as much time on your actual argument as you do on evaluating everyone's personalities and finding new and innovative ways to fit the word "ontology" and its variants into every single sentence you type, you would actually have a decent argument by now.

Also, to keep on topic, I agree with pretty much everyone who's saying you're wrong. I slogged through each of your posts and can't figure out how the hell you think you've proven that chi can't exist because a different theory was disproved.

I cannot find it. I know you think chi does share the properties of vitalism. I do not know why you think it does so and I do not know why you think your interpretation is a better one to work with. I've read the thread and I cannot see where or how you answered those questions. If you did, it was done in a way that I simply could not comprehend. So, imagine if you will, that I am an idiot and I am in need of more simple answers. Would you be so kind as to tell me what your answer to that question was? I doubt I am the only one who would benefit from it.

kobok, consider this a formal apology for my behavior in the chat room last night. I will leave it at that.

I was lacking sleep and have fallen on very, very tough times. I need a lot of help that I am not getting. I will, however, not allow Rayn to make blanket statements he cannot defend that don't just attack this section, that I used to manage and moderate, but this entire site, it's staff, and its users (current and former) that have been involved with it since it was put up in 2002, and those later including myself. Rayn is obviously unwilling to defend anything he says and his solution instead is to troll, then run away, and delete his posts, when it is too bothersome for him to defend his baseless arguments. He cannot do so without committing a slew of logical fallacies and then devolving into using ad hominem personal attacks against me. He does this to everyone, or at least historically did.

This is my last post. I apologize for stirring up trouble by responding to him. Nice sensationalist topic title, too. Last I checked this wasn't Twitter.

Rayn is obviously unwilling to defend anything he says and his solution instead is to troll, then run away, and delete his posts, when it is too bothersome for him to defend his baseless arguments. He cannot do so without committing a slew of logical fallacies and then devolving into using ad hominem personal attacks against me. He does this to everyone, or at least historically did.